You're viewing a single thread.
Basically a consolidated version of the Myers-Briggs test, which is basically astrology for middle-managers.
Short story. My company brought in a different working-type consulting group. I decided to try my own experiment and answered the 150 survey completely randomly, didn't read the questions. Then sat through a 4 hour workshop where most of my colleagues told me it made so much sense I was a [whatever my results were, I forget]." Found out they paid like $10k for the day session, never told anybody what I did.
If I have to ever sit through that shit again, I'm stealing your technique.
Middle Managers and 2nd rate psych students. But, having surveyed my undergraduate classes in the past, about 50% of them believe in astrology so it's no wonder the Myers-Briggs speaks to them.
Isn't it meant to be a categorical insight?
I was always under the impression it's obviously non-scientific and simply there to explain the broad aspects of a personality to others quickly.
Maybe that's the real personality test. Exposing how prone someone is to tribalism over self-reflection based on "I am a..." vs "My outcome was..."
What it's meant or actually useful for, vs how it's used in contexts like employment are significantly mismatched.
It's like understanding what a framing hammer is supposed to be used for and how to do so properly and safely, only to turn the news on and learn that the general population is somehow convinced that they're for eye surgery; and thousands of ER visits later, from dumbasses who DIY'd that shit and popped their eyes, the general population has learned... not a damn thing... they're still bashing their eyes apart with framing hammers.
I've had 3 dramatically different outcomes depending on the context in which I take it.
I believe it clearly says that's a totally acceptable outcome at the start and explains why that's expected and fine.
That it do. Albeit not loud enough.
I mean, some people like BuzzFeed quizzes, but it's easy to tell that it's for entertainment, knowing they're not scientific. When it's an documented personality test with a long history, it's easy to assume it's scientific. But social sciences weren't all that scientific until the last few decades, anyway.
interestingly, anedoctaly, I'm an absolute skeptic about almost everything, including astrology, religion and the such, but this test was so on spot from me I had a real hard time being convinced it was pseudoscience
I've only known a handful of psych students, but even as students they knew enough about the Myers-Briggs to recognize it as pseudo-science bullshit. Sad to hear that's not universal.
My Psych degree hangs framed above my toilet. It really brings the room together. I only put partial weight into standardized testing, IQ or personality tests, and I hope other people realize the constraints and fallabilities of these metrics. I don't detest that they exist. I just hope people don't horoscope 'em.
Yeah... I've been rejected from jobs for not popping an "ENTJ" or whichever fucking Harry Potter house their overgrown facebook quiz was supposed to sort me into. People -with authority- absolutely horoscope em.
...with that anecdote in mind, I maaaaay be a tad biased.
Might vary from school to school. The bigger thing is upbringing, many first gen kids don't have that going into college so it's more a task to teach critical thinking to them. More privileged kids get that out the gate, especially if they're coming from private schools that encourage critical thinking and not following orders / memorization.
I teach at a place with mostly first gens, so thats how it is.